The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Page 6 WEST VANCOUVER HISTORICAL SOCIETY January 1995 FEATURE PRESENTATION REPORT Population I^ends Reported By: Waring Pentland Our Guest Speaker for November was Charles M. Campbell. He was bom in the mining town of Phoenix in the East Kootenays and attended UBC. graduating in Mining Engineering in 1938. He spent 35 years working in the mining industry in Quebec, Ontario and BC. He held a number of senior management positions including Vice-president ofBralorne Pacific Mines and General Manager of Western Mines on Vancouver Island. At various times he served on the UBC Senate, the Canadian Mining Institute, the BC Resources Conference and was active in BC politics. In 1973 he was appointed to the Canadian Immigration Appeal Board and served as Vice Chairman before he was retired in 1983. He has remained interested and concerned in inmigration ever since. His articles and letters of comment have been published widely in the media where he has been a constant critic of current immigration policies. Campbell began with a review of the role of immigration in Those found unacceptable more often than not disappear, the early years of development of our country when hard work (Campbell quotes figures varying from 32% to 45% depending on was the key to success. Colonization ofCanada was based on the the year.) Apparently, applicant refugees once in Canada, over- initiative of immigrants who were selected on their ability to adapt andmeet the demands of a growing resource-based economy. None of this was news to those listening as many had direct knowledge of these circumstances. Between 1945 and 1978 4.6 million immigrants were accepted into Canada; selected on the basis of their ability to satisfy the country’s needs during this period of rapid economic growth. The spouse and dependant children followed the principal immigrant. On obtaining citizenship, after a five year settlement period, these new Canadians could nominate their extended family for entry. There was no security net but jobs were waiting and most were productively employed immediately. Being compatible with their new environment, immigrants from UK, USA and Europe rapidly integrated, their families flourished and their children became Canadian in every respect. In 1978 immigration rules changed and by 1992 the result of these changes was evident. That year independents who entered on merit together with business immigrants amounted to only 12% of the total. ‘Nomination’ had been replaced by ‘Sponsorship’; previous requirements of settlement, citizenship and ability no longer applied. On grant of landing it became the right to sponsor parents who could bring dependent children and grandparents without consideration of literacy or skills. This family class had now become 44% of total immigration. As Campbell expanded on the changes in the mles his audience grew evermore attentive. A microphone problem may have heightened the audience’s attention level somewhat, but there was no question he had the attention of everyone as he listed the failures and consequences of the new system. To provide international perspective Campbell compared the operation of the pre 1989 Refugee Status Advisory Committee - working with experienced UN advisors - with the new Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) - staffed with inexperienced but politically correct appointees. Immediately, the IRB more than trebled the acceptance rate to 80% of claimants. The acceptance rate for one group soared from an incredible 0.2% between 1977 and 1988 to 49% in the first half of 1994 and 29% of those who claimed refugee status on the basis of persecution failed to appear for their hearings. whelm government efforts to control all but the most supplicant, with deportation in many cases proving impossible to implement. Campbell claims we have lost control of our border and of growth in our population. Why has this situation reached this point? It is Campbell’s view that politicians make the following case for continuing the present immigration policy. “Immigration has been good for Canada so we will increase admissions; we face an increasing deficit and we need the growth and the expanded economy; the birthrate is below replacement levels; and an aging population needs those taxpayers to cover their pensions.” Point by point, Campbell cited data to prove this political case would not stand up to scrutiny. Quoting reputable sources he cast doubt on almost all the aspects forming the basis for the current regulations. He questioned the necessity for population growth, the ability of special areas to handle the proposed growth without decreasing perceptively the quality of life and the importance of population change on our economy. Typical of examples he brought forward was one that I find hard to forget, and I quote, “...the factthat in Vancouver 45% of all students in the school system are in E.S.L classes, and of those, 40% were bom in Canada.” Senior Immigration Advisors are currently drawing attention to some of the relevant problems and expressing the need for changes in regulating immigration. However a recently issued ‘Strategy for Immigration and Citizenship into the 21st Century’, following on these reports and national concern, does little more than address objectives which competent management should have dealt with routinely. In the information accompanying the ‘Strategy’ there are no new or amended regulations, no Ministerial directives and no sense of urgency. Campbell concluded his presentation on a sombre note, and I quote; “In the meantime, the Minister continues to assure us on National television that family reunification remains the cornerstone of immigration policy and the Red Book’s one percent acceptance rate continues to be the objective. That means that population growth will continue out of control.” At this point he threw the meeting open to questions which continued unabated until suspended to accommodate closing time. The predominant question was, “What can any one individual do?” His answer, “Make your concerns known at administrative and political levels.”